There doesn’t seem to be any good evidence for a figure as high as 100,000.

The article notes human rights groups looking for mass graves finding bodies in the hundreds. Ultimately, we’ll need a good epidemiological study like that done in Iraq, Sudan, Democratic Republic of Congo, etc. to get a reliable estimate for the death toll. I’m willing to go out on a limb and say based on news reports from the conflict that it will be in the low thousands.

Because of the existence of what you call “bleeding hearts” opposition activists the world over have every incentivize to make absurdly inflated estimates of casualties to prompt U.S. intervention on their behalf.

Well, there was a lot of controversy on the Iraq numbers as well. However, the exact death tool is not the main point. The main point is to try to compare the world’s reaction to what was happening in Iraq to the reaction to Libya. Like I mentioned, this is a much smaller country and you can easily make the call that the carnage is at least comparable. So where are the street protests? Where is the media revolt? The whole world seems pretty much resigned to what is going on in Libya and Syria. Back when we had the civil war in Iraq they were calling the US soldiers Nazis and saying that we were to blame. Who is to blame now?

#3 is obviously wrong, Tyler, and frankly I’m surprised you would make such an elementary error. Clearly what happened was that Chuck Norris graciously allowed the rest of the world’s bridges to not be named after him.